Semantic debate: what is a “gamer/player”

[Baulderstone]

Yeah to be clear I’m very poor at expressing my ideas here on the web. I just wanted to discuss something I read about on Twitter but misunderstood what I read. I’ve rolled back my judgementally flawed observations since I wrote the OP, so once again, so that I make no enemies:

“I am not a gatekeeper, I wanted to talk about something I read but obviously took in bad faith.”

So yeah, please discuss more but I wanted my stance to be obvious. Gate keeping and labelling rpg players = bad, very bad. K thanks bye

For my part, it never occurred to me that you were gatekeeping, so don't worry about it.

 

[Simlasa]

I never really thought of myself as a 'gamer'. To me those are the guys who are always onto the newest bested console/PC games and churning through them like it's a career. They're the World of Warcraft guys who play out any new content within the week it's released.
I do play/run RPGs, face-to-face and online, and regularly visit forums and blogs... but I still feel I'm more casual than a lot of folks I see around.
I'm even building myself a (bigger) wargame table... but still, I don't think of myself as a 'gamer'.
Maybe it's just that old Groucho Marx thing about clubs and members...

 

[TristramEvans]

First off, my initial reaction is that I've never thought of "gamer" as some super secret club that there's anything special about belonging to. It's a moniker that to me carries a lot of (affectionately applied/acknowledged) negative stereotypes, so I don't see it as something that someone would place particular value on, though I am aware because of the internet that some do.

In other words, personally, I cannot muster 2 cents to rub together to care if anyone calls themselves a gamer or why. A person can chose for themselves how they want to identify or define themselves based on their interests, and I offer no standards that must be met for my benefit, because I simply don't care. I can't see how it affects my life at all.

That would be the whole of it, but there is one sort of edge case that does reside in my mind. I think there is a difference between those geeks who lived through the Satanic Panic and those who adopted the term in later generations, insofar as a shared cultural experience.

 

[Trippy]

If you are posting on a gaming forum like this, I consider yourself as being 'hardcore'.

You are definitely in a tiny minority of folks who play games, overall.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah to be clear I’m very poor at expressing my ideas here on the web. I just wanted to discuss something I read about on Twitter but misunderstood what I read. I’ve rolled back my judgementally flawed observations since I wrote the OP, so once again, so that I make no enemies:

“I am not a gatekeeper, I wanted to talk about something I read but obviously took in bad faith.”

So yeah, please discuss more but I wanted my stance to be obvious. Gate keeping and labelling rpg players = bad, very bad. K thanks bye

To echo Baulderstone, I did not take your posts as anything to do with Gatekeeping. You were asking people's opinions, not dictating terms to anyone.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

That would be the whole of it, but there is one sort of edge case that does reside in my mind. I think there is a difference between those geeks who lived through the Satanic Panic and those who adopted the term in later generations, insofar as a shared cultural experience.

Even there regional differences are likely to be as significant as anything else.

My entire experience of the Satanic Panic:

A friend's parents had heard the fuss about this "dungeons and dragons" thing and were worried we were corrupting their son.

We invited his vicar to sit in on a session.

Don't know what was said to the parents, but I do know they never raised a concern after that session.

 

[Baulderstone]

Even there regional differences are likely to be as significant as anything else.

My entire experience of the Satanic Panic:

A friend's parents had heard the fuss about this "dungeons and dragons" thing and were worried we were corrupting their son.

We invited his vicar to sit in on a session.

Don't know what was said to the parents, but I do know they never raised a concern after that session.

Good point. In the mid-80s, I gamed in the United States, the UK, Kuwait and Australia, and the only one of those places where the Satanic Panic seemed to get any traction was the US.

 

[Black Vulmea]

I am a pretty, pretty princess.

Prove me wrong, motherfuckers. PROVE ME WRONG.

 

[Trippy]

Good point. In the mid-80s, I gamed in the United States, the UK, Kuwait and Australia, and the only one of those places where the Satanic Panic seemed to get any traction was the US.

I had a different experience, honestly. I went to school in the UK mainly, and a year in NZ. While nobody was particularly censored,
the NZ school - which was Catholic - had teachers who went on rants about the "dangers" of D&D and we even had sermons about it in assembly. In the UK, teachers generally didn't give much interest, but I do remember some Sunday debate TV shows having topics attempting to link D&D to suicide. I'm pretty certain it was a lot worse in the US, but there were pockets of bigotry against D&D in lots of places in the 80s. It kinda ran out of steam, ironically, in the 1990s when a whole bunch of dark, occult-themed RPGs came out.

To be sure, if anybody ever challenges you on the negative or 'dangerous' impact of gaming, do let them know that all case studies and research into the social impact of gaming shows us that it prevents or reduces risk of suicide across all age ranges. As an educationalist, it also promotes learning in general.

 

[Voros]

I thought the wider use of the term 'gamer' was in reference to fans of video games, which these days is almost everyone under the age of 40 and a lot of people older than that. Growing up, from the arcade era to the arrival of Nintendo, videogames were always popular with pretty much everyone of my age so I've always thought the term pretty meaningless.

 

[TristramEvans]

I am a pretty, pretty princess.

Prove me wrong, motherfuckers. PROVE ME WRONG.

seems legit

 

[Bunch]

Gamer I'm more used to being associated with video games mostly because they are a much larger population group.

 

[opaopajr]

Seems like a crossing-a-threshold (pass/fail) 'doing' thing, thus this assertion sounds like paradox. Sorta like "fucking for virginity" ... It is possible the declared premise can be wrong on its face. "I do not, therefore I do -- and have not ever done, therefore I did." Sounds like magical thinking.

 

[Nobby-W]

What if you are somebody who doesn't have access to other people to play, whether by physical location or lack of internet access, but you have access to RPGs? You want to play, you read the material and create characters and campaign ideas, but the logistics to play aren't in your favor. Are you going to tell that guy he's not a gamer? I wouldn't.

I think you've just described a significant fraction of the Traveller fan base there. The system is famous for tinkering. There are even discussions on the topic on COTI and the TML.

 

[AsenRG]

social media
semantics
pedantic

I think those things should not be mixed!

 

[AsenRG]

What if you are somebody who doesn't have access to other people to play, whether by physical location or lack of internet access, but you have access to RPGs? You want to play, you read the material and create characters and campaign ideas, but the logistics to play aren't in your favor. Are you going to tell that guy he's not a gamer? I wouldn't.

Realistically? You need those factors to work against you cumulatively.
So you don't have access to people, nor a decent Internet connection, you just got the books somehow. So you're never going to find out about the debate, and it matters not one bit to you!
If you can get to Twitter, you can play by post, too.

Help him to download Skype onto his computer and make friends on the internet? I game a lot by Skype these days.

This, too.

It's a good suggestion, but not everyone is going to be comfortable diving in with people that they have never met over the Internet, especially if they aren't confident about gaming yet.

Alas, also true.
But sometimes then the same person would tell you about his guild's exploits in an MMORPG...even though he's never met those guys, either! So I'd conclude that there's something else that prevents him or her from playing...
(And I'd probably either offer a spot in a group, or stop interacting).

I got back into RPGs about 2 years ago because of my friend David. David had a huge interest in RPGs, had read many books, tried to play once with his brother, but that was it. His interest in the hobby rekindled my interest in the hobby, so I started building a group. We had a weird personality conflict with the first guy running games for us, and he left the group, so I stepped up and ran LMoP. Once that was over, David ran a Final Fantasy inspired game using d6 Fantasy. It was his first game he'd ever run, and he did pretty well. That group is still going strong today, plus David finally got the courage to get his circle of friends to try playing, and now runs a DCC game for them as well.

Here's the thing, I think if I hadn't come along and got the group going, then held it together when the going got a bit rough, he'd still be just an RPG fan, not an active player. I think a lot of people that fall into the category of RPG fan, but not actively playing, are like David. I don't know if it's anxiety or what that prevents them from playing, but I do think most or all of them just need the impetus provided by someone else to get actively involved in the hobby.

That actually fits my experience quite well!

The biggest issue I have with categorization is that I vary in what I like to play. When gamers divide up into camps, I rarely sit comfortably in any of them.

That's not "issue". Surely you mispelled "advantage"?

I only recognize three types of gamers: Cool Person, Asshole and Not Sure Yet.

Sounds legit!

I think you're on to something there. That's part of why streamed games and actual plays are popular now. Saw a thread about running Fate recently that said something along the lines of "I watched some videos and know how to play now." People nowadays seem to be very visual learners.

No, they've just decided that reading is somehow a hard task...

I might be a little harsh on this subject.
You guys know about Immanuel Kant the philosopher? Kant wrote about a lot of things without leaving his home. But if you asked Kant, what was the cost of the bread on his local baker he probably wouldn't know the price.
I don't trust people who don't know how much their food costs.

What's Kant's Critique of Pure Reason got to do with the price of tea in China?

I never really thought of myself as a 'gamer'. To me those are the guys who are always onto the newest bested console/PC games and churning through them like it's a career. They're the World of Warcraft guys who play out any new content within the week it's released.
I do play/run RPGs, face-to-face and online, and regularly visit forums and blogs... but I still feel I'm more casual than a lot of folks I see around.
I'm even building myself a (bigger) wargame table... but still, I don't think of myself as a 'gamer'.
Maybe it's just that old Groucho Marx thing about clubs and members...

I used to use "Gamer" the same way. I agreed to change the meaning because many people on RPG forums believe that RPGs make you a gamer.
I didn't agree back then, but accepted it as the common use of the word.

 

[BlackWolf]

What's Kant's Critique of Pure Reason got to do with the price of tea in China?

It's just an analogy, I wouldn't trust any info from someone who doesn't play.
The same way I never trusted Kant to tell me anything about life.

Oxford Dictionary on gamer :

A person who plays video games or participates in role-playing games.

So yes, if you don't play you are not one.

 

[dokel]

Existence precedes essence.

To quote from Wikipedia (yeah, I know):

"When it is said that man defines himself, it is often perceived as stating that man can "wish" to be something – anything, a bird, for instance – and then be it. According to Sartre's account, however, this would be a kind of bad faith. What is meant by the statement is that man is (1) defined only insofar as he acts..." (emphasis mine)

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Good point. In the mid-80s, I gamed in the United States, the UK, Kuwait and Australia, and the only one of those places where the Satanic Panic seemed to get any traction was the US.

And even there I suspect there was a lot of difference depending on where you were.

Not sure I'd have wanted to be a D&D player in certain parts of Northern Ireland or Scotland.

And on the other hand my gran bought me my first ever RPG and she was big in the Chicago Methodist community.

 

[Baulderstone]

That's not "issue". Surely you mispelled "advantage"?

I suppose "not fitting into any RPG camp" is the very definition of an RPG Pub regular.

 

[CRKrueger]

If I don’t play Football but love to watch Football, I’m not a Football player, I’m a Football Fan.

People who have never played an RPG, but love watching Critical Role aren’t roleplayers, they are Critical Role Fans.

This is pretty clear.

The fuzziness comes in because I would be willing to wager most people who are CR Fans (or watch Twitch streams of other RPGs) play some form of video games or other tabletop games, or used to.

So people are gamers, or lapsed gamers, but not roleplayers.

It gets even fuzzier when you start talking about the “RPG Community”, which is really just corporate babblespeak for “people who in one form or another consume a product related to an RPG IP”.

 

[Winterblight]

Not sure I'd have wanted to be a D&D player in certain parts of Northern Ireland or Scotland.

As a GM from Northern Ireland who had gamers from all over the province at the table, we couldnt believe the hysteria and the idea that religious folk in the US were claiming D&D was satanic. I think folks in NI had other things to worry about. Still thats just my perspective. Ive never heard the satanic panic being discussed as something that happend here.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

So people are gamers, or lapsed gamers, but not roleplayers.

Or potential roleplayers which is important as well I think.

I remember some worry about how new people were going to come into groups with unrealistic expecations because of Critical Role.

Which was groundless in my experience. This year we got an influx of freshers who had watched the show and we had no issues. Because they all had grasped that the difference between a YouTube performance and an IRL group were likely to be big anyway. And that despite the fact nobody was even running D&D this year.

The main effect Critical Role had was that several of them had turned up at university determined to try RPGs. So from our perspective the show is a very positive thing indeed

It gets even fuzzier when you start talking about the “RPG Community”, which is really just corporate babblespeak for “people who in one form or another consume a product related to an RPG IP”.

Agreed.

I'm part of my local gaming community because I'm part of my local group(s). I'd also be willing to say I'm a member of the RPGPub community, because I do see this as a virtual community.

Am I part of a community with some random guy who runs D&D in Iowa? Not really.

 

[tenbones]

I use the term "gamer" as someone that is a "gaming enthusiast." The implication is that they partake in actual acts of gaming. The degree to which they do that is where people wanna argue about it, and I just say "whatever". I can dicker about "degrees of gaming" with the best of them.

What drives me nuts is the "meta" of it all - the weird belief that because you're peripherally involved in the perceived culture of gaming (which I think is silly) as opposed to actually gaming, that it makes one somehow cool or some kind of weirdo authority on the topic. Or worse - that it means something other than "I have an opinion" without any context. Because clearly there is context to ones degree of involvement.

Because you like football doesn't make you a football player. You're a sports-fan. Because you talk about basketball and participate in a bunch of fantasy-leagues doesn't make you a player of those sports or even confer some special knowledge or wisdom over someone that *actually* does those things.

I'm a "gamer" because it's what I do. If someone wants to say "they're a gamer" because they like to dick around playing Minesweeper. Great. I'll accept that. But that doesn't mean you know what you're talking about writ-large about in other areas of gaming. I'm totally deferential to those that know from experience more than I do in all kinds of gaming. *Because* I want to learn.<-- there is the difference. There's people that have created some kind of weak-sauce cache around what they call "geek culture". Those are the ones that have tried to make more out of the term than it needs to be for their own egos.

I don't even know what "gatekeeping" in gaming is. No one is stopping me from gaming because they have an opinion on the internet. If by "gatekeeping" it means forming up cliques and keeping you out of online communities... okay. Shitty thing to do but, whatever.

I think it goes back to the Arcade. Sure there was gaming prior to Pong. But ultimately it was about the game. You put your fucking quarter into the machine, and you picked Sagat (because you're cool), and you played against your opponent (virtual or real). You game.

Being that person that just watched other people play and pretending they knew what it was like is "something else" related to gaming. Being that person and pontificating on it for self-aggrandizement seems to be a lower form of pond-scum.

Put your quarter in and play, dummies.

 

[tenbones]

And big green beats me to the punch with the sports reference.... Not the first time. You bastich.

 

[opaopajr]

Oh, I get what this topic is about now! It's about Contagion Thinking: The Mere Association Is Enough.

Oh shit! I think I also just de-mystified why these bizarre declarations are occuring nowadays, why they are being fought for so hard as real, AND just stepped into The Big Bad Politics.

 

[tenbones]

Oh, I get what this topic is about now! It's about Contagion Thinking: The Mere Association Is Enough.

Oh shit! I think I also just de-mystified why these bizarre declarations are occuring nowadays, why they are being fought for so hard as real, AND just stepped into The Big Bad Politics.

"POOP IS CANDY." - Rule #9 Gatekeeper 101

 

[Dumarest]

First off, my initial reaction is that I've never thought of "gamer" as some super secret club that there's anything special about belonging to.

 

[Ladybird]

I don't even know what "gatekeeping" in gaming is. No one is stopping me from gaming because they have an opinion on the internet. If by "gatekeeping" it means forming up cliques and keeping you out of online communities... okay. Shitty thing to do but, whatever.

Basically, yeah... "you don't meet this entirely arbitrary standard that I made up, so you're not allowed to call yourself a gamer or take part in gaming" (Or whatever type of thing that people gatekeep, which is everything).

And while it's not so bad online, in real life, if the only groups around you are gatekeepy... you're potentially going to have problems.

 

[Necrozius]

Which was groundless in my experience. This year we got an influx of freshers who had watched the show and we had no issues. Because they all had grasped that the difference between a YouTube performance and an IRL group were likely to be big anyway. And that despite the fact nobody was even running D&D this year.

This was my experience as well! I had people wanting to join my group at work specifically because of that show.

 

[AsenRG]

I agree with the sports comparison. If you're just watching other people play RPGs, you're an RPG fan. Fine by me, if that's what you want. I can even give you a spot at one of my tables, if we like you as a person and you're not interrupting the game. (Yes, I have done that in the past, and nobody was hurt by us having a "honorary wallflower").
If you play, you're a player. If you run, you're a Referee, GM, or Storyteller, whatever the game calls you or you elect to call the job - title makes no difference IME.
However, I think fans can easily be part of the gaming community. If they just buy games and don't play them, but study the mechanics and settings and comment? OK, why not! It's not like conclusions derived by logic are meaningless, right? Quite the opposite!
Granted, if those conclusions contradict with someone else's experience, I'd say that the experience is likely to trump the conclusions. But only likely: if you played the game and it didn't work, maybe the GM wasn't good at running it, maybe it just wasn't a kind of game that works for you (but might be fine for other people), and so on. Conversely, if it worked and someone else has objections to the mechanics...are you sure you know what houserules the GM has been applying? Or what else he might have done to restrict the impact of something that seems like a mechanical problem?

Spoiler: Example

Consider role of the prescribed lack of magic shops and magic being rare, and its impact on old TSR-era D&D and the task of keeping the casters balanced at high levels. Most experienced GMs of it seemed to agree that it had a role, and that changing this helped turn D&D 3e into the caster-fest that it is.
But it's likely to be missed totally by someone who merely reads the numbers.

And of course, given the low barreer on entry, the line between someone reading games and starting to play might be as thin and colourless* as someone else asking "you want to play?"
And lastly, people that play other games are gamers, and might have their own insights on gaming in general. They might be wrong on the RPG hobby...but then again they might be right. And they might not be RPG gamers, but again, the bareer for entry is thin, and colourless, as it should be IMO.

So, this is where I stand on the topic.
But mostly, I think pedantic and semantics should be kept away from social media!

*No, it's not a thin red line. It's not a thin blue line, either!

 

[Voros]

Pretty sure it is all a strawman argument to begin with.

 

[Skarg]

I think over-defining/restricting the word "gamer" is mostly going to be cause some confusion and/or arguments as soon as you encounter someone with a different definition.

Personally, I would just say it refers to someone who plays or has played any kind of (non-physical sport) game and who identifies with the term, which to me indicates an interest in games and having actually played games at some point.

Again it doesn't matter what type of game. For example, there are people who only play video games, web games, phone games, traditional card games, or casino games, some of whom call themselves gamers. And there are people who have only played single-player games, or played multi-player games solitaire, who call themselves gamers.

Instead of arguing that some/all of those people aren't gamers, I'd rather add an adjective to say what you mean. e.g. maybe you really mean boardgamers.

I do think it may be reasonable to say that people who actually never play any game, but only read the rules or watch others, aren't technically "gamers", but if they have actually played a game or two of some sort, then one might be generous, or if one feels a need to diparage them somehow, maybe again be more accurate by using adjectives to say what you mean.

 

[Voros]

The whole thing reminds me of silly arguments over who was or wasn’t ‘punk’ back in the day. Except extra nerdrage.

 

[Necrozius]

Pretty sure it is all a strawman argument to begin with.

I'm starting to believe that too. As usual, some pundit somewhere takes a quote, mostly out of context (or deliberately so), so that they can complain about it for more clicks.

...not what I'm doing, for the record bwah hah hah

 

[Edgewise]

You're all gamers! Now go forth and game!

 

[Baulderstone]

Pretty sure it is all a strawman argument to begin with.

This. Also, in any scene, the people the spend the most time warning about infiltration by posers are generally interested in using the scene for their own status rather than being there for genuine reasons.

 

[dokel]

As an aside, I have to say that there are few things I find more tedious than passively spectating someone else's gaming session. For me, watching actual plays on youtube (or listening to actual play podcasts) is akin to some form of psychological torture

 

[Dumarest]

This. Also, in any scene, the people the spend the most time warning about infiltration by posers are generally interested in using the scene for their own status rather than being there for genuine reasons.

Hmm...are you gatekeeping against poseurs?

 

[Voros]

As an aside, I have to say that there are few things I find more tedious than passively spectating someone else's gaming session. For me, watching actual plays on youtube (or listening to actual play podcasts) is akin to some form of psychological torture

I agree for myself as well, I’ve been able to listen/watch to about 20 minutes max before my mind wanders. It used to be a truism that watching a session or listening to someone describe their session was as boring as someone telling you their dream.

But there were always people happy to just sit in and watch a session and now there is obviously a reasonable sized audience who do enjoy it. Who am I to judge? I find watching most team sports as involving as watching paint dry but look at the number of people who enjoy that.